OBJECTIVES: We evaluated whether clinicians agree in the detection of non-contrast CT markers of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) expansion. METHODS: From our local dataset, we randomly sampled 60 patients diagnosed with spontaneous ICH. Fifteen physicians and trainees (Stroke Neurology, Interventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology) were trained to identify six density (Barras density, black hole, blend, hypodensity, fluid level, swirl) and three shape (Barras shape, island, satellite) expansion markers, using standardized definitions. Thirteen raters performed a second assessment. Inter- and intra-rater agreement were measured using Gwet's AC1, with a coefficient > 0.60 indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement. RESULTS: Almost perfect inter-rater agreement was observed for the swirl (0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.90) and fluid level (0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.90) markers, while the hypodensity (0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.76) and blend (0.62, 95% CI: 0.51-0.71) markers showed substantial agreement. Inter-rater agreement was otherwise moderate, and comparable between density and shape markers. Inter-rater agreement was lower for the three markers that require the rater to identify one specific axial slice (Barras density, Barras shape, island: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.40-0.52 versus others: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.56-0.63). Inter-observer agreement did not differ when stratified for raters' experience, hematoma location, volume, or anticoagulation status. Intra-rater agreement was substantial to almost perfect for all but the black hole marker. CONCLUSION: In a large sample of raters with different backgrounds and expertise levels, only four of nine non-contrast CT markers of ICH expansion showed substantial to almost perfect inter-rater agreement. KEY POINTS: • In a sample of 15 raters and 60 patients, only four of nine non-contrast CT markers of ICH expansion showed substantial to almost perfect inter-rater agreement (Gwet's AC1> 0.60). • Intra-rater agreement was substantial to almost perfect for eight of nine hematoma expansion markers. • Only the blend, fluid level, and swirl markers achieved substantial to almost perfect agreement across all three measures of reliability (inter-rater agreement, intra-rater agreement, agreement with the results of a reference reading).
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated whether clinicians agree in the detection of non-contrast CT markers of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) expansion. METHODS: From our local dataset, we randomly sampled 60 patients diagnosed with spontaneous ICH. Fifteen physicians and trainees (Stroke Neurology, Interventional and Diagnostic Neuroradiology) were trained to identify six density (Barras density, black hole, blend, hypodensity, fluid level, swirl) and three shape (Barras shape, island, satellite) expansion markers, using standardized definitions. Thirteen raters performed a second assessment. Inter- and intra-rater agreement were measured using Gwet's AC1, with a coefficient > 0.60 indicating substantial to almost perfect agreement. RESULTS: Almost perfect inter-rater agreement was observed for the swirl (0.85, 95% CI: 0.78-0.90) and fluid level (0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.90) markers, while the hypodensity (0.67, 95% CI: 0.56-0.76) and blend (0.62, 95% CI: 0.51-0.71) markers showed substantial agreement. Inter-rater agreement was otherwise moderate, and comparable between density and shape markers. Inter-rater agreement was lower for the three markers that require the rater to identify one specific axial slice (Barras density, Barras shape, island: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.40-0.52 versus others: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.56-0.63). Inter-observer agreement did not differ when stratified for raters' experience, hematoma location, volume, or anticoagulation status. Intra-rater agreement was substantial to almost perfect for all but the black hole marker. CONCLUSION: In a large sample of raters with different backgrounds and expertise levels, only four of nine non-contrast CT markers of ICH expansion showed substantial to almost perfect inter-rater agreement. KEY POINTS: • In a sample of 15 raters and 60 patients, only four of nine non-contrast CT markers of ICH expansion showed substantial to almost perfect inter-rater agreement (Gwet's AC1> 0.60). • Intra-rater agreement was substantial to almost perfect for eight of nine hematoma expansion markers. • Only the blend, fluid level, and swirl markers achieved substantial to almost perfect agreement across all three measures of reliability (inter-rater agreement, intra-rater agreement, agreement with the results of a reference reading).
Authors: Andrew M Demchuk; Dar Dowlatshahi; David Rodriguez-Luna; Carlos A Molina; Yolanda Silva Blas; Imanuel Dzialowski; Adam Kobayashi; Jean-Martin Boulanger; Cheemun Lum; Gord Gubitz; Vasantha Padma; Jayanta Roy; Carlos S Kase; Jayme Kosior; Rohit Bhatia; Sarah Tymchuk; Suresh Subramaniam; David J Gladstone; Michael D Hill; Richard I Aviv Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2012-03-08 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: S M Davis; J Broderick; M Hennerici; N C Brun; M N Diringer; S A Mayer; K Begtrup; T Steiner Journal: Neurology Date: 2006-04-25 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Adnan I Qureshi; Yuko Y Palesch; William G Barsan; Daniel F Hanley; Chung Y Hsu; Renee L Martin; Claudia S Moy; Robert Silbergleit; Thorsten Steiner; Jose I Suarez; Kazunori Toyoda; Yongjun Wang; Haruko Yamamoto; Byung-Woo Yoon Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ryan Wada; Richard I Aviv; Allan J Fox; Demetrios J Sahlas; David J Gladstone; George Tomlinson; Sean P Symons Journal: Stroke Date: 2007-02-22 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Christen D Barras; Brian M Tress; Soren Christensen; Lachlan MacGregor; Marnie Collins; Patricia M Desmond; Brett E Skolnick; Stephan A Mayer; Joseph P Broderick; Michael N Diringer; Thorsten Steiner; Stephen M Davis Journal: Stroke Date: 2009-03-12 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Nikola Sprigg; Katie Flaherty; Jason P Appleton; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Daniel Bereczki; Maia Beridze; Hanne Christensen; Alfonso Ciccone; Ronan Collins; Anna Czlonkowska; Robert A Dineen; Lelia Duley; Juan Jose Egea-Guerrero; Timothy J England; Kailash Krishnan; Ann Charlotte Laska; Zhe Kang Law; Serefnur Ozturk; Stuart J Pocock; Ian Roberts; Thompson G Robinson; Christine Roffe; David Seiffge; Polly Scutt; Jegan Thanabalan; David Werring; David Whynes; Philip M Bath Journal: Lancet Date: 2018-05-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Joseph Frantzias; Robert J Lee; Patrick D Lyden; Thomas W K Battey; Alison M Ayres; Joshua N Goldstein; Stephan A Mayer; Thorsten Steiner; Xia Wang; Hisatomi Arima; Hitoshi Hasegawa; Makoto Oishi; Daniel A Godoy; Luca Masotti; Dar Dowlatshahi; David Rodriguez-Luna; Carlos A Molina; Dong-Kyu Jang; Antonio Davalos; José Castillo; Xiaoying Yao; Jan Claassen; Bastian Volbers; Seiji Kazui; Yasushi Okada; Shigeru Fujimoto; Kazunori Toyoda; Qi Li; Jane Khoury; Pilar Delgado; José Álvarez Sabín; Mar Hernández-Guillamon; Luis Prats-Sánchez; Chunyan Cai; Mahesh P Kate; Rebecca McCourt; Chitra Venkatasubramanian; Michael N Diringer; Yukio Ikeda; Hans Worthmann; Wendy C Ziai; Christopher D d'Esterre; Richard I Aviv; Peter Raab; Yasuo Murai; Allyson R Zazulia; Kenneth S Butcher; Seyed Mohammad Seyedsaadat; James C Grotta; Joan Martí-Fàbregas; Joan Montaner; Joseph Broderick; Haruko Yamamoto; Dimitre Staykov; E Sander Connolly; Magdy Selim; Rogelio Leira; Byung Hoo Moon; Andrew M Demchuk; Mario Di Napoli; Yukihiko Fujii; Craig S Anderson; Jonathan Rosand Journal: Lancet Neurol Date: 2018-08-14 Impact factor: 44.182
Authors: Xia Wang; Hisatomi Arima; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman; Mark Woodward; Emma Heeley; Christian Stapf; Pablo M Lavados; Thompson Robinson; Yining Huang; Jiguang Wang; Candice Delcourt; Craig S Anderson Journal: Stroke Date: 2014-12-11 Impact factor: 7.914